Amujale:


As a neutral participant looking from the outside, one has to take caution not to take sides, and I have no intention of taking any side.

For me, I base my conclusions on individual merit.

Everything has to be rated by merit.

Remove all the cloud of hate and propaganda and reach conclusion based on individual merit.

you can attempt to disguise your bias all you want by being verbose, operative word here is "attempt" but the moment you claim that hearsay should carry legal validity your attempt fails and you prove either one or both of two things, you're either ignorant of the requirements of proving an argument "legally" and/or you have revealed your bias for a particular side hence you water down the legal requirements needed to prove their argument to not the barest minimum but actually no minimum hence your willingness to take hearsay on personal recognizance as being superior to actual evidence so spare us your prosletysing you are an umudike republican! Own it and swell their ranks and stop pretending to be neutral

Amujale:


Rudy Giuliani broke it down meticulously.

Go and search for the video on the internet. He gave a press conference.

finally here he goes! "Rudy Guliani broke it down " therefore it must be true sorry, did Rudy Guliani provide any actual factual evidence submissible in court or is it the court of deplorable republican public opinions we are appealing to? I thought you were trying to pretend you were neutral?

LordReed:


Really? Must have been a lizard not a kraken.

respect lizards please! more like a nematode! That's why no sane person noticed

Wasn't Sidney Powell suppose to be one of their aces. Kwakwakwakwa

Denied her like a baby momma

BraniacX:
you can attempt to disguise your bias all you want by being verbose, operative word here is "attempt" but the moment you claim that hearsay should carry legal validity your attempt fails and you prove either one or both of two things, you're either ignorant of the requirements of proving an argument "legally" and/or you have revealed your bias for a particular side hence you water down the legal requirements needed to prove their argument to not the barest minimum but actually no minimum hence your willingness to take hearsay on personal recognizance as being superior to actual evidence so spare us your prosletysing you are an umudike republican! Own it and swell their ranks and stop pretending to be neutral

Brilliant breakdown.

He wants to claim neutral on hearsay within hearsay that judges are dismissing with prejudice. Yeye dey smell.

Amujale:


You aren't making any sense.

What is your conclusion.

Did Rudy file lawsuits alleging election malpractices?

Any one who watch his press conference will know that Rudy Giuliano himself said that was what he is partaking.

I don't quite understand what you are getting at here.

so filing a suit equates to presenting legally incontrovertible evidence in same suit now abi? Oga go and sit down! You are out of your league here

Timiofak:
When the crazy becomes too much, you drop it

O ti o.. But we are still waiting for the Kraken..

Amujale:
For all those American politics fundamentalist exremists that cannot seem to think objectively.
Allow me, there are allegations of election malpractices in the US 2020 electoral processes.

Deal with it, those are the facts whether we are fond of them or otherwise.

yes allegations they are and allegations they remain as court after court throws out argument after argument based on these allegations because of the lack of evidence! Finally we are getting somewhere! Took you long enough to accept that these are all and will continue to remain allegations unless they present valid evidence to support them! Speaking of which, do you personally have any evidence to support their "allegations" ?

Amujale:


That is incorrect, it's one thing to claim that the evidence is false and to show by disproving the complainants accusations, and it's a completely different situation and an unacceptable thing to keep saying there's no evidence.

Whatchu mean?

How did it get to be heard in the courts?

Kindly stop saying that, that's untrue.

I will keep my neutral hat on and wait the conclusion of this saga.

that is really a daft question and that is me putting it nicely

Suits or petitions don't have any logic, moral or truth requirements to be presented for consideration in court in the first place

nateevs:


Oluwa! She's been burned. Hahahahahaha. I don die.

In the words of Ibime, dominion don enter voicemail.

leave oluwa burna out of this roasting ejowo

nateevs:


Clown. You are worse than those that openly support Trump. At least we know their type of crazy. It appears you have invented a new kind in your own lane.

One day after your meticulous Rudy was on TV, he was admitting in court that there is no evidence of court and you are here embarrassing yourself, acting like a smartass neutral.

Neutral my asss. Go and check what 'Team Trump' are saying in court about evidence of fraud, if you are remotely invested in being neutral.

You think we also made them claim in court that there is no evidence.

Don't mind the comedian. Trying to form "rational" when he can't explain where Rudy has shown us HOW and WHEN Dominion was hacked to flip votes for Biden.
Awon objective guy smh...

It's all about money. It's always been all about money. Just check out this crazy link below. Like I said previously, anyone who falls for this, deserves to be conned.

https://defendingtherepublic.org/

benalvino2:


And how many times will I tell you that common sense is not like money or diamond that you place value on it?

Sense that is common has no value.

If you had worked for your sense it wouldn't be common and you'd likely value it more than money or diamonds.

Amujale:

What more proof are you to need?

Amujale, you are just asserting as you usually do and as trump has been doing and you are asking us to believe you without providing any evidence at all.

Amujale:
For all those American politics fundamentalist exremists that cannot seem to think objectively.
Allow me, there are allegations of election malpractices in the US 2020 electoral processes.

Deal with it, those are the facts whether we are fond of them or otherwise.

It is indeed a fact that "there are allegations of election malpractices in the US 2020 electoral processes", but until evidence is provided those "allegations" are not facts.

sanpipita:
Just look at, wonder what basilico and co will now hold on to, they said Sidney Powell had all evidence, what will happen to all her affidavits.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1330642696306786304?p=v

Dem don lost well well.

Amujale:


Yes he was meticulous in the way he broke down his reasons for pursuing those arguments in the courts.

I watched Rudy's press conference. All through I was like is this dude mad or something, thinking it could not get worse, then Sidney Powell said Hugo Chavez woke from the grave to vote for Biden and I figured they were just separating that fool trump from the little money he has left.

Meticulous is not a word I'd use to describe what Giuliani did there nor did the judge he said it to the next day.

BraniacX:
respect lizards please! more like a nematode! That's why no sane person noticed

LMFAO! Ah, I just wanted to give him benefit of the doubt that maybe he saw a lizard and mistook it for a kraken. Now I know it wasn't release the kraken but release the crackhead. LMFAO!

budaatum:

Sense that is common has no value.

If you had worked for your sense it wouldn't be common and you'd likely value it more than money or diamonds.

You are senseless. You don't work for family it is common, you work for friendship therefore family has less value than friendship
It is common that every man has a father and mother so parents had less value that friends or managers in the office? Is that how you are thinking it. If you don't work for it then it has less value? Like oxygen and water we don't work for... It has less value than gold abi? You see why you don't make sense looking at sense like you look at money and gold?


Without common sense you won't have sense. If you don't have common sense how can you be wise? How can you understand? Without foundation can you build a house?
Again you see common sense like you see money or other precious stones but that's not how life work.

Each time you talk about it you keep showing you don't have common sense.

When a baby is born the baby knows he has to feed. The baby did not work to acquire that knowledge but it is the key to its survival. That is common sense.

You should stop talking about things you don't understand.

The evidence is there already. There are states that were unconstitutional by changing election rules. The court or state governors can't change election rules. That alone is enough to get to discovery but the country is gone. At this point I think they should just sit back and watch how the next 4years unfold

BraniacX:
you can attempt to disguise your bias all you want by being verbose, operative word here is "attempt" but the moment you claim that hearsay should carry legal validity your attempt fails and you prove either one or both of two things, you're either ignorant of the requirements of proving an argument "legally" and/or you have revealed your bias for a particular side hence you water down the legal requirements needed to prove their argument to not the barest minimum but actually no minimum hence your willingness to take hearsay on personal recognizance as being superior to actual evidence so spare us your prosletysing you are an umudike republican! Own it and swell their ranks and stop pretending to be neutral

First you need to understand the difference between a hearsay and an oath.
Trump was impeached base on hearsay, people have gone to prison based on hearsay. There are people who robbed commit murder, and they brag about it in the pubs or prison... The court use hearsay in those aspect as an evidence. The hearsay has to fit with the evidence.

Oaths are taken by people with first hand knowledge and are willing to be punished if they are lying. I can see a man kill another man, but because I didn't have my phone to record it or prove it... All I have are my words.

What I am saying it's not every crime or fraud you can provide hard evidence for. This election has so many irregularities. If people are under aoth, people who work in the counting and canvassing process saying this and this happened under oath, why can't they rule that let's check for those things they say happen and see if it's there?

Why all the time wasting. Get investigators from both parties to check for those irregularities. The fake signatures etc. etc. Saying we recount or audit by same people who do the fraud is pointless. Thats just me.

benalvino2:
The evidence is there already. There are states that were unconstitutional by changing election rules. The court or state governors can't change election rules. That alone is enough to get to discovery but the country is gone. At this point I think they should just sit back and watch how the next 4years unfold

You still get mouth to talk? I thought you have gone away quietly like all your other Trump cult colleagues on this forum. But then it's seems shame is missing from your vocabulary.

In the US, it's states that organise and makes rules for elections, but with oversight by the congress. Asking Trump's worshippers to know that is asking for too much.

wirinet:


You still get mouth to talk? I thought you have gone away quietly like all your other Trump cult colleagues on this forum. But then it's seems shame is missing from your vocabulary.

In the US, it's states that organise and makes rules for elections, but with oversight by the congress. Asking Trump's worshippers to know that is asking for too much.

So in what you posted, where does it say state governors and court can change election rules?

benalvino2:


So in what you posted, where does it say state governors and court can change election rules?

Article 1, Section 4 of the US constitution.

benalvino2:
The evidence is there already. There are states that were unconstitutional by changing election rules. The court or state governors can't change election rules. That alone is enough to get to discovery but the country is gone. At this point I think they should just sit back and watch how the next 4years unfold

Yep just give up the charade, the kraken is nothing but a bad smelly fart.

benalvino2:


So in what you posted, where does it say state governors and court can change election rules?

Mr man, if a governor changed rules and you didnt challenge it in court before election and you want to challenge it after election because you lost, even if its ruled in your favour it wouldnt affect the already cast votes. Maybe future election.

Your claim is rubbish, and thats shows you know nothing about the law.

A40:
They are displaying all the traits of members of a personality cult. I've read stories of followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh etc. And the Trumpies I see here and all over SM exhibit all the traits.

Scientists are lying, Doctors are lying, media are lying, Big Tech are lying only Trump is telling the truth

Can't he just concede and lead his 70+ million followers to an uninhabited island and be ruling his subjects from there

wirinet:

Article 1, Section 4 of the US constitution.

Again, where did it say state governors and court? You don't seem to understand that states have their own legislation and constitution? Pls don't be responding to things you don't understand.

Nansy pelosi and mitch cannot impeach state governors... There are assemblies in each state to do that. Just as you have house of assembly in Nigeria in each states... The house of assembly can impeached a governor and make state laws... But the house of rep and senate cannot. They deal on the federal level. That's what separation of power is

Timiofak:


Mr man, if a governor changed rules and you didnt challenge it in court before election and you want to challenge it after election because you lost

Is rubbish, and thats shows you know nothing about the law.

This is rubbish. Lol you don't know how court work. They can nullify election don't you know? Elections has been redone don't you know? Or sometimes a court ruled who the winner is.

LordReed:


Yep just give up the charade, the kraken is nothing but a bad smelly fart.

I personal don't think it will be easy to change the outcome of this but that does not mean there is no fraud. I have been saying this from the start. No one should just accept it without fighting.

For 3 years all you guys said was Russia stole the election.

Nothing was proven but courts took cases or listen to cases. Now this time they are saying lets look at the things so we can show you where everything is... And they said nope.

This sort of things happen in Nigeria all the time. Since everything is now political even the court... It means nothing can be done right

Timiofak:


Mr man, if a governor changed rules and you didnt challenge it in court before election and you want to challenge it after election because you lost

Is rubbish, and thats shows you know nothing about the law.

they want to challenge state laws they decided not to challenge before the election. Sometimes you have to give it to trump and his madness.

So because he lost states should start running around changing laws they decided on. Mtsheew

bayelsaowei:
they want to challenge state laws they decided not to challenge before the election. Sometimes you have to give it to trump and his madness.

So because he lost states should start running around changing laws they decided on. Mtsheew

I think in order to file a claim you have to 1) have standing which they obviously do, and 2) they have to show "harm". I think one of the two candidates lost his election, although not certified yet. So it should be interesting indeed.